Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Farsight]

Farsight, please explain the contradiction between the Higgs mechanism and E=mc².

So far you've completely failed to do so and have, as far as I can tell, only asserted that there's a contradiction.

I've explained it plenty of times, Robo. It's really simple. Let's try again. You know about effective mass don't you? When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass. This happens because the photon interacts with something, but it isn't the Higgs field, it's just the electromagnetic field within a block of glass. The ratio of effective mass to photon energy-momentum depends on how much you've slowed it down. When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a mirror-box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is exhibited as effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. See this article for details. The box is just a body that absorbs radiation and gains mass. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, with electromagnetic field not Higgs field. The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron. You made them both in two-photon physics*, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves".

The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. Like the photon in Compton scattering it offers resistance to change-in-motion, only now you're dealing with a standing wave and you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any "boxes" in the first place. Just the standing waves. A radiating body loses mass, whereupon the standing waves aren't standing any more. Dead simple. And the only field involved is the electromagnetic field.

* In the Wikipedia article it says pair production occurs because one of the photons spontaneously transforms into an electron-positron pair. That's like worms from mud, and it's wrong. Photons don't magically spend their lives spontaneously transforming into electron-positron pairs which then magically transform back into a single photon which nevertheless manages to keep on propagating at c. LOL! Gamma-gamma pair production does not occur because pair production occurs! It occurs when light interacts with light. Electromagnetic field interacts with electromagnetic field, and the result is mass. No Higgs field is required.

 

[Farsight]

I find Farsight's views completely unfathomable...

No you don't. You know full well that my views are totally in line with Einstein, and you know that Hellbound's heated chunk of iron gains mass. Only you don't have the sincerity to admit it. Tut tut, edd. Or should I say: bob.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

No you don't. You know full well that my views are totally in line with Einstein.

 

[Farsight]

Have you read this article Farsight?

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html

Not that I can recall. I've just read it and thought it was pretty interesting. It's quite an old article and there's a few things wrong with, but there's quite a few things right with it too.

"Some particle physicists claim that a hypothetical particle called the Higgs boson gives mass to subatomic particles such as electrons. Late last year, hints that the Higgs really exists were found at CERN, the European centre for particle physics near Geneva. So, does the Higgs explain weight and inertia? The answer is probably no.

The Higgs field is said to be responsibly for circa 1% of the mass of matter. However all the pop-science news reports skate over this, and the CERN publicity office is quite happy for it to go uncorrected.

"Wait a minute. How can these physicists claim they have discovered the origin of mass when their proposed mechanism fails to explain the very things that make it what it is? Well, as Bill Clinton might say, it all depends on what you mean by mass. When these particle physicists speak of mass, they are not thinking in terms of inertia or weight. Matter is a concentrated form of energy. It can be changed into other forms of energy and other forms of energy can be changed into matter -- an equivalence embodied in Einstein's famous equation E= mc2. So in this sense, the mass of a subatomic particle is a measure of the amount of energy needed to make it".

Just like Einstein said.

"The Higgs can account for that, at least partly (see "Mass delusion" sidebar). "

The sidebar says "So the Higgs mechanism explains only a tiny part of the rest mass of ordinary matter". See my post 1208 where I report Gian Giudice of CERN saying the Higgs is not central to the standard model and is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.

There's other articles around, such as Particle Headache by Matthew Chalmers. You can read things like this:

"The minimal standard model Higgs is like a fairy tale," says Guido Altarelli of CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. "It is a toy model to make the theory match the data, a crutch to allow the standard model to walk a bit further until something better comes along...

...The only way to do that while retaining a semblance of theoretical dignity, says Altarelli, is to invoke a conspiracy brought about by a suitable new symmetry of nature.

The "new" symmetry is the one between momentum and inertia, only it isn't new at all. One is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating on a linear path at c, the other is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c in a closed path. Wave nature of matter and all that. Really simple stuff. And what it means is that E=mc² isn't responsible for 99% of the mass of matter. It's responsible for 100%.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What does that have to do with the fact that your grasp of mathematics is hopelessly limited?

My maths isn't hopelessly limited. I've explained maths behind things like SR time dilation which employs the Lorentz factor

.

Farsight has tried to explain time dilation, but he got the math wrong.

Earlier in this very thread, Farsight gave us his hilariously incorrect derivation of time dilation from the Lorentz interval. After several errors were pointed out, both major and minor, Farsight tried again. He fixed the minor errors but repeated his major conceptual errors:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8792382&postcount=809

Farsight never did figure out how to correct his major errors. Eventually he gave up and declared victory, as he's doing here.

Most people don't understand relativity, but that doesn't mean they're crackpots.

To become a crackpot, someone who doesn't understand relativity would have to go well beyond not understanding relativity. For example, someone who doesn't understand relativity could prove himself to be a crackpot by writing and self-publishing an entire book that documents his failure to understand relativity.

 

[Skwinty]

It's quite an old article and there's a few things wrong with, but there's quite a few things right with it too. .

I assume the following from your statement above.

Haisch-Rueda origin of inertia and Puthoff's PV model equating to wrong.

The bulk of the inertia coming from kinetic energy of confined quarks
inside the hadrons as shown by Frank Wilzcek equating to right.

 

[ctamblyn]

And I'm afraid it can't do that without saying Einstein was wrong.

(Regarding the laughable allegation the the Higgs mechanism contradicts SR.)

Your arguments, and this one in particular, fail to demonstrate even a remote appreciation of how the Higgs mechanism and special relativity work.

They've never been broken, and you know it

(Regarding loopy photon nonsense.)

They are, and hopelessly so. "Not even wrong" applies very much to these models.

There's no problem with charge conservation.

(Regarding loopy photon nonsense again.)

And here your argument, as it has always done in this area, fails to demonstrate even a remote appreciation of QED.

 

[edd]

No you don't. You know full well that my views are totally in line with Einstein,

I disagree.

and you know that Hellbound's heated chunk of iron gains mass. Only you don't have the sincerity to admit it.

Sure, I admit that. In fact Hellbound never denied that if you read his posts carefully. He's tried to argue that your point of view is inconsistent by looking at either option.

Note he's tried to argue that, not me. I still find your view unfathomable, so I won't comment on whether he's accurately assessed it or not.

 

[Farsight]

I assume the following from your statement above.

Haisch-Rueda origin of inertia and Puthoff's PV model equating to wrong.

Yes.

The bulk of the inertia coming from kinetic energy of confined quarks inside the hadrons as shown by Frank Wilzcek equating to right.

Nearly. What I'm really saying though is that all of the inertia comes from confined kinetic energy. There's no quarks in an electron, it's "just" confined kinetic energy. In low-energy electron-positron annihilation you release it, and get two (or more) gamma photons. Now check out low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons. This has a cross section of about 1% I think. You don't see six quarks coming out, you see two (or more) gamma photons. So the proton is "just" confined kinetic energy too. Overall you end up saying that quarks in their turn are "just" confined kinetic energy, and then you confine them.

 

[Hellbound]

Yes. That's what Einstein said. The mass of body is a measure of energy content. He even referred to the electron as a body. So the mass of the electron is a measure of its energy content. Not something else.

Yes, yes, I'm conceding that point for the sake of argument.

Yes. Ask around elsewhere about this. I'm appalled that the guys here don't have the honesty to say I'm right about this. It's just bog-standard E=mc².

Um, Farsight, NO ONE has said you are wrong about this. Yes, it does gain mass. I'm simply taking your "logic" to step trhough some other aspects of your "thinking".

Hellbound, go look it up: "In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions.[1][2] The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction,[3] radiation,[4] and convection".

If this is how you understood Einstein, it's no wonder you're confused. I don't have to look it up, I already knew the answer. I have not, nor did I, declare you wrong. I'm illustrating the inconsistency in your reasoning, because such a case can be consdiered analagous to the Higgs interaction.

I'll presume there was a "not" missing from the last bit. Answer: because you can make an electron (and a positron) from photons in gamma-gamma pair production. The mass of the electron is 511keV. The mass of the "Higgs boson" is 125GeV. So the electron mass can't be because of the Higgs boson. Now can it?

They aren't my arguments. They're Einstein's.

Yes, I missed a not.

*sigh*

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Higgs is some sort of sub-particle, a lego brick, like quarks.

It ain't like that, bro.

To borrow from Wikipedia:

In the Standard Model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking

And additional bit:

Fermions, such as the leptons and quarks in the Standard Model, can also acquire mass as a result of their interaction with the Higgs field, but not in the same way as the gauge bosons.

If you're going to argue against it, you need something other than the simplistic "but it has more energy, dunnit?". You need to understand the actual mechanisms involved.

Besides which, your argument is similar to saying that a high-energy photon-photon reaction can't make an electron. Are you claiming that only photons at exactly 511keV can make electrons? If not, then once again your argument fails on itself.

No you don't. You know full well that my views are totally in line with Einstein, and you know that Hellbound's heated chunk of iron gains mass. Only you don't have the sincerity to admit it. Tut tut, edd. Or should I say: bob.

Funny, no one has denied the iron gains mass...that's only a consequence of consistently applying your objections to the Higgs unilaterally. And if this is a display of your reading comprehension, then it's no wonder you don't understand Einstein, neither his writings NOR the math.

Keep up the asinity.

 

[Hellbound]

I disagree.

Sure, I admit that. In fact Hellbound never denied that if you read his posts carefully. He's tried to argue that your point of view is inconsistent by looking at either option.

Note he's tried to argue that, not me. I still find your view unfathomable, so I won't comment on whether he's accurately assessed it or not.

I had the mis-formed optimism that, since I am also one who doesn't understand the math (but am smart enough to trust the work of those who do), that I might be able to give an argument at a similar level that would have some sort of impact.

Well, it did, arguably, have an impact.

I just hoped it to be something besides running headfirst into granite.

But, tragic as that may be, it's always darned funny

 

[Farsight]

I have not, nor did I, declare you wrong. I'm illustrating the inconsistency in your reasoning, because such a case can be consdiered analagous to the Higgs interaction.

All you're doing is illustrating the inconsistency in your own reasoning. I said the mass of the electron is a measure of its energy content. Not something else. You replied saying Yes, yes, I'm conceding that point for the sake of argument. So that's it then. It's a measure of it's energy content, not something else. Not a measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle.

I had the mis-formed optimism that, since I am also one who doesn't understand the math (but am smart enough to trust the work of those who do)...

LOL. Talk about Emperor's New Clothes.

...Besides which, your argument is similar to saying that a high-energy photon-photon reaction can't make an electron. Are you claiming that only photons at exactly 511keV can make electrons? If not, then once again your argument fails on itself... blah blah blah

Really Hellbound, I'm forever referring to pair production and annihilation. I'm the one explaining the physics here. You're clutching at straws and playing the troll. Please desist because actually, it isn't funny. It's embarrassing.

 

[godless dave]

The tire pressure in one of my car's tires is a measure of the density of air molecules in the tire.

Does that mean if I explain that the air got in there via an air compressor, that explanation contradicts the tire pressure?

Because that's pretty much what you're arguing, Farsight.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The real problem that Farsight has with the Higgs mechanism is that Farsight believes that the only thing that exists is photons and everything is merely a photon in some twisted loop. If this is the case, there is no room for anything else to cause rest mass, because he thinks that rest mass is really just an account of the energy of the photon bouncing back an forth. It's a lovely fantasy that cannot possibly work for many reasons, but Farsight dogmatically clings to it because he cannot work out the math enough to actually produce physical evidence.

If he could, then he could answer these questions about claims that he made:

"why does the expansion rate of a homogeneous matter dominated universe slow?"

Can you provide a detailed scale for the inhomogeneity that you identify as being so great in the universe?

Can you please provide us with a detailed model for your claim that in a universe as homogeneous as you identify the universe to be, gravity will cause the matter in the universe to coalesce into one central lump, but it will not do the same to space?

Can you please give us the equation for the pressure that you identify as being an innate feature of empty space? (And please do not dodge the question as you often do by claiming that this is Phil Plait's idea. You are endorsing the pressure and you are using it as the basis of your claims.)

Can you explain why every practicing cosmologist engaged in "a misunderstanding of gravity and a disregard for space" since (at least) 1920?

Can you please provide a citation as to when this misunderstanding and disregard was rectified?

Can you point to where this misunderstanding and disregard occurs in standard papers on cosmology?

Why is it that conservation of energy says the dark energy density can't stay the same? In your answer, please clearly state the law of conservation of energy in a form usable in a physics application.

 

[Farsight]

...Your arguments, and this one in particular, fail to demonstrate even a remote appreciation of how the Higgs mechanism and special relativity work...

Oh no? I'm the one giving all the physics here along with the rock-solid references. I'm the one who explained mass totally in line with Einstein, and showed how simple it is. So simple that you can't fault it. Why don't have you a crack at that? Tell us why it's wrong, bob.

After that you can explain mass in terms of the Higgs mechanism. And tell us all how the fabulous Higgs boson gets its mass. But hey guess what? You won't. Because you can't. And you know that even if you'd tried, I'd rip it apart. So all you're going to do is carp carp carp.

 

[Farsight]

The real problem that Farsight has with the Higgs mechanism is that Farsight believes that the only thing that exists is photons...

No I don't. Neutrinos exist. They aren't photons. So that's you bowled out. Who's next?

 

[Hellbound]

All you're doing is illustrating the inconsistency in your own reasoning. I said the mass of the electron is a measure of its energy content. Not something else. You replied saying Yes, yes, I'm conceding that point for the sake of argument. So that's it then. It's a measure of it's energy content, not something else. Not a measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. [channeling Farsight]The mass of my chunk of iron is a measure of the energy content, not a measure of it's interaction with some mystical force (like electromagnetism adds to mass, how inane!).[/channel]

Pretty much all energy is a measure of interaction with some "cosmic treacle", Farsight. That's what forces are, and forces act to give rise to work. And what is energy, the basic definition? Ability to do work?

For someone who's explaining physics, you sure seem to be taking a LOOOOONG time to get to actual, you know, physics.

But go ahead, keep up with the "I'm so much smarter than everyone else" act. I'll let the readers decide whether it was my contention of "Colonel Mustard", in the "Library", with the "Rope"...or yours, of "Aliens", in the "eighth dimension", with the "strawberry pudding".

The tire pressure in one of my car's tires is a measure of the density of air molecules in the tire.

Does that mean if I explain that the air got in there via an air compressor, that explanation contradicts the tire pressure?

Because that's pretty much what you're arguing, Farsight.

This. A thousand times this.

Dave, why do I type so much when you just come along and condense it into three sentences?

B******.

 

[godless dave]

Oh no? I'm the one giving all the physics here along with the rock-solid references. I'm the one who explained mass totally in line with Einstein, and showed how simple it is.

Einstein didn't explain mass, nor did he claim he had. He figured out mass-energy equivalence. That's not the same thing.

 

[Cuddles]

By the way, as a member of large experimental collaborations, I've worked with professional project managers.

On a science project like this, it's the scientists who decide what the goals and methods are. The collaboration founders (physicists) decided what experiment to do. They decided on the R&D needs, the components and their arrangement, the precision requirements, the computational tools. The collaboration board (physicists, again) actually perform the R&D, design the components, diagnose the components that turn out not to work, write the software, run the software, etc.

As far as I can tell, the project manager's role was to listen to the physicists and turn our statements into Gantt charts. They look at the Gantt charts and monitor for things that are on the critical path, or in danger of becoming so. The project manager says (very useful) things like "Hey, guys, the project plan assumes that Task #400 and Task #506 can take place simultaneously, but they both want to use Resource #66a full-time"; or "Task #101 has missed three of its declared milestones by 1.5 months. If milestone #4 slips by more than 2 months, it impacts the critical path. Fix that." Or "The physicists involved proposed declaring 3-month contingency window for Tasks #6-10 collectively, but experience with tasks #2-5 suggest this is inadequate. I will budget assuming at least one of tasks in this group will overrun, and assign a 10% chance that two will overrun."

The project manager did NOT make statements like "You're measuring top quarks? I prefer Higgs bosons, they sound important. I will add a 'discover Higgs boson' milestone and complain that you're failing to meet it."

Again, I don't think that your claim "There's a risk of failing to discover truths about space and time" is an authentic statement of risk management. You don't have a Gantt chart showing how and when spacetime-knowledge milestones might be reached. You don't know what tasks already underway are tied to spacetime-truths milestones. You don't know the probability of success of those tasks, nor the resource-allocation among them. You don't have a new task to add to the chart, nor any evidence that such new tasks would decrease the schedule risk.

If you want to convince me that you *do* have such things, please go ahead.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. I think the ultimate problem here is that there is no schedule in the first place. "Discover new stuff" is not a defined goal with a set budget and completion time. We don't know what the endpoint of any particular line of research is, we don't know how long it might take, we don't know what resources might be required for it in the future. Importantly, we can't know any of that, because the whole point is that it's research into things we don't yet understand.

BurntSynapse seems to be looking at things in terms of the defined goal being "discover FTL travel", and then complaining that because we haven't laid out a nice Gantt chart with all the bits of research that need doing to get to that point, there must be a problem with physics in general. But note that he hasn't actually provided such a chart himself. Because it's just not possible to do so. No-one knows if FTL travel is possible at all, let alone what specific tasks need to be completed in what order and on what schedule in order to get there. So complaining that we haven't done so just doesn't make sense.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just when you think Farsight couldn't be any more wrong, he surprises us:

Oh no? I'm the one giving all the physics here along with the rock-solid references.

After hundreds of posts that note fatal flaws in Farsight's explanations, including his casual disregard for even the most fundamental laws such as conservation of charge and conservation of units, Farsight pretends no one has found anything wrong:

I'm the one who explained mass totally in line with Einstein, and showed how simple it is. So simple that you can't fault it. Why don't have you a crack at that? Tell us why it's wrong, bob.